Constraint degree in revision total knee replacement: a registry study on 1432 patients.
Constraint
Failure
Outcomes
Revision
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
Musculoskeletal surgery
ISSN: 2035-5114
Titre abrégé: Musculoskelet Surg
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101498346
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 May 2023
26 May 2023
Historique:
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
18
05
2023
medline:
27
5
2023
pubmed:
27
5
2023
entrez:
26
5
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Total knee replacement (TKR) failure represents a hard challenge for knee surgeons. TKR failure can be managed in revision with different constraint, related with soft and bone knee damages. The choice of the right constraint for every failure cause represents a not summarized entity. The purpose of this study is identifying distribution of different constraints in revision TKR (rTKR) for failure cause and the overall survival. A registry study based on the Emilia Romagna Register of the Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (called RIPO) was performed with a selection of 1432 implants, in the period between 2000 and 2019. Selection implants including primary surgery constraint, failure cause and constraint revision for every patient, and divided for constraint degrees used during procedures (Cruciate Retaining-CR, Posterior Stabilized-PS, Condylar Constrained Knee-CCK, Hinged). The most common cause of primary TKR failure was aseptic loosening (51,45%), followed by septic loosening (29,12%). Each type of failure was managed with different constraint, the most used was CCK in the most of failure causes, such as to manage aseptic and septic loosening in CR and PS failure. Overall survival of TKA revisions has been calculated at 5 and 10 years for each constraint, with a range of 75.1-90.0% at 5 years and 75.1-87.5% at 10 years. Constraint degree in rTKR is typically higher than primary, CCK is the most used constraint in revision surgery with an overall survival of 87.5% at 10 years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37237144
doi: 10.1007/s12306-023-00790-1
pii: 10.1007/s12306-023-00790-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Chalmers BP, Matrka AK, Sems SA, Abdel MP, Sierra RJ, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW, Mabry TM, Perry KI (2020) Two-stage arthrodesis for complex, failed, infected total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 102-B: 170–175
Cherian JJ, Bhave A, Harwin SF, Mont MA (2016) Outcomes and aseptic survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 45:79–85
pubmed: 26866318
Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, Wolf BR (2012) Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991–2010. JAMA 308:1227–1236
doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11153
pubmed: 23011713
pmcid: 4169369
Farfalli G, Aponte-Tinao L, Ayerza M, Muscolo D, Boland P, Morris C, Athanasian E, Healey J (2013) Comparison between constrained and semiconstrained knee allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions. Sarcoma 2013:489652
doi: 10.1155/2013/489652
pubmed: 23476114
pmcid: 3586499
Gudnason A, Milbrink J, Hailer NP (2011) Implant survival and outcome after rotating-hinge total knee revision arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1601–1607
doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1330-5
pubmed: 21656196
Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS (2010) Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 468:1221–1228
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1204-0
pubmed: 20058112
pmcid: 2853653
Houfani F, Mainard D, Rubens-Duval B, Papin P-E, Pasquier G, Ehlinger M, French Society for Orthopaedic, Trauma Surgery (SoFCOT) (2021) Rotating-hinge prosthesis for aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a multicentre retrospective study of 127 cases with a mean follow-up of five years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 107:102855
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102855
pubmed: 33581278
Hungerer S, Kiechle M, von Rüden C, Militz M, Beitzel K, Morgenstern M (2017) Knee arthrodesis versus above-the-knee amputation after septic failure of revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison of functional outcome and complication rates. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:443
doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1806-8
pubmed: 29132347
pmcid: 5683527
Hwang S-C, Kong J-Y, Nam D-C, Kim D-H, Park H-B, Jeong S-T, Cho S-H (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior stabilized, condylar constrained or fully constrained prosthesis: a minimum 2-year follow-up analysis. Clin Orthop Surg 2:112–120
doi: 10.4055/cios.2010.2.2.112
pubmed: 20514269
pmcid: 2867196
Laskin RS, Ohnsorge J (2005) The use of standard posterior stabilized implants in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976–2007(440):122–125
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000187060.19949.40
Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet Lond Engl 370:1508–1519
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7
Luque R, Rizo B, Urda A, Garcia-Crespo R, Moro E, Marco F, López-Duran L (2014) Predictive factors for failure after total knee replacement revision. Int Orthop 38:429–435
doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2268-8
pubmed: 24402557
pmcid: 3923955
Luttjeboer JS, Bénard MR, Defoort KC, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB (2016) Revision total knee arthroplasty for instability-outcome for different types of instability and implants. J Arthroplasty 31:2672–2676
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.062
pubmed: 27546470
Mabry T, Vessely M, Schleck C, Harmsen W, Berry D (2007) Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems. Long-Term Follow-Up J Arthroplasty 22:100–105
pubmed: 17823026
Meijer MF, Reininga IHF, Boerboom AL, Stevens M, Bulstra SK (2013) Poorer survival after a primary implant during revision total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 37:415–419
doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1739-7
pubmed: 23263508
Postler A, Lützner C, Beyer F, Tille E, Lützner J (2018) Analysis of total knee arthroplasty revision causes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:55
doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-1977-y
pubmed: 29444666
pmcid: 5813428
Romanini E, Decarolis F, Luzi I, Zanoli G, Venosa M, Laricchiuta P, Carrani E, Torre M (2019) Total knee arthroplasty in Italy: reflections from the last fifteen years and projections for the next thirty. Int Orthop 43:133–138
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4165-7
pubmed: 30293141
Sappey-Marinier E, Fratini S, Kremer H, Shatrov J, Batailler C, Servien E, Lustig S (2021) Similar outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty achievable for aseptic revision using the same primary posterior-stabilised prosthesis at a mean follow-up of 49 months. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30(8):2854–2861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06716-3
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06716-3
pubmed: 34476561
Shen C, Lichstein P, Austin M, Sharkey P, Parvizi J (2013) Revision knee arthroplasty for bone loss: choosing the right degree of constraint. J Arthroplasty 29:127–131
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.042
pubmed: 23743510
Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD (2019) Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the national inpatient sample. J Rheumatol 46:1134–1140
doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170990
pubmed: 30988126
Wilke BK, Wagner ER, Trousdale RT (2014) Long-term survival of semi-constrained total knee arthroplasty for revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 29:1005–1008
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.025
pubmed: 24393376
Yoon J-R, Cheong J-Y, Im J-T, Park P-S, Park J-O, Shin Y-S (2019) Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14:e0214279
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214279
pubmed: 30908538
pmcid: 6433230
National Joint Registry, 18th-annual-report-2021
Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, SAR-annual-report-2021-SIJAF mIRI5
Finnish Arthroplasty registry-thl.fi/endo/report/#data/knee_rev_years-2021
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry-annual report 2021